Much of this post has been the result of sudden and unsettling change – but I’ve tried to abandon my confessed status-quoism in discussing the future of a territory where I have spent a lion’s share of the last 5 years.
It was rather unfortunate
to be stuck in a train, far from live coverage, when news of a purported Telengana broke out. It was even more frustrating not to be in Hyderabad, when the exhibition of democratic dissent surfaced. Perhaps, emotional anguish was most directed against the ripping-apart of a State that has probably been one of the better governed in the country.
Before the Telengana empathizer starts to dig their nails into this post, let me explain why I think the split was a terrible, terrible idea.
My argument, interestingly, stems from Malini Parthasarathy’s tweet about the division being a political result and not historically ‘explained’. Fully in agreement, I think there ought to have been a modus vivendi between the creation of a separate State and the problems of the undeniably underprivileged segments in the region. The States Reorganisation Commission, constituted in 1956 was assigned to do the demarcation on the basis of linguistic lines. Consequently, Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telengana fell within the larger Pradesh, though there were dialect differences to reckon with. In the realm of policy-making, Andhra Pradesh witnessed acts of gross discrimination against the people of Telengana, especially the coastal regions, in issues of public-sector jobs, educational opportunities and standards of living.
Telengana has always been used as a trump card, by N.T. Rama Rao, by Channa Reddy, by Nara Chandrababu Naidu, by K. Chandrasekhara Rao, and by countless other political figures. The objective, in tune with the demand, became political. Unlike Potti Sreeramulu’s hunger strike which resulted in the creation of AP (and his death), KCR demand’s pertain primarily to administration, and not recognition per se. In the process of the cause being articulated, especially amongst civil society, it has been viewed as a recognition of Statehood akin to the creation of AP itself.
The Congress has always responded to the Telengana cause politically, which I personally believe, has been the right way to go about it. But in suddenly relenting to the demand, India’s oldest party has shown that it dearly lacks the acumen and iron hand of someone like YSR.
To cut through the brass tags, let’s take a look at the infamous Red Corridor. Which states do some of the most lawless, most violent and dangerous parts of India comprise? Chattisgarh and Jharkhand. Rings a bell?
I’m not going to the justifiability of the demands that led to the creation of C and J (socio-cultural identity, of course, was the predominant one). What I am going to dwell on, is the administrative facilities available in a nascent State.
Andhra Pradesh has had a long-standing history of Maoist insurgency, with the naxals constantly infusing doses of violence in society. Not only has the Telengana movement provided ample cover for Naxal stirs, the separate, autonomous region will also house significant chunks of radicals. The new administration will find it increasingly difficult to manage the hostile demands of Maoist groups, but will also see Andhra Pradesh and the Union Govt reticent to come to its help without a concrete plan of action.
Consequently,equitable and effective governance, which has been the rallying cry for the creation of Telengana, will not materialize. The difficulties in formulating public policy that gauges the pulse of the secessionist sentiment, will be gargantuan. Not just because the sentiment is mixed with emotion and rhetoric, but is a classic case of the political thumping the real needs of those affected. The naxal problem is merely one thorn in the administrative flesh, and the problems faced by new States are for everyone to see.
Well then, why is it a problem, if the long run sees a developed Telengana that has won its wars with itself? The irony lies in the fact, that Telengana is being created from a State that has been the only one to have successfully combated naxalist violence. Status quo, to which I will respectfully allude to now, is the product of years of negotiation, and years of counter-insurgency (sometimes ruthless, and cold-blooded). The question to be asked is, will all roads lead to the same Rome, though disguised as populist sentiment?
As usual, I escape, without talking about the modus vivendi or other viable alternatives – but this time, its because there’s no point in crying over spilt milk.
(I would like to reiterate that this post has been the consequence of emotional, rather than rational outpour – Comments and criticisms are most welcome.)
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Very Sensible post. If the people of the region yearn for a seperate state then it should be decided by them, through referndum of course. It is best advice, that the state exist as a unified one, which will provide better resources for development. Development is possible only we effective administration becomes a reality. The people should not attach sentiments to the issues raked by the political clan, which often is superficially pro people, but is in the interest of their own. If the elected representatives of the Telangana could not deliver all these years, I seriously doubt that they could deliver with even lesser resource and aid.
Telengana, if carved out as a separate state, with Hyderabad as it’s capital would have a strategic advantage over the other smaller states like Chattisgarh or Jharkand as there would be better utilization of already existing resources which are lacking in those other states. The aforementioned states were not carved out of a revolution or a struggle for eons, and therefore the people of Telengana will be more proactive in establishing the standards and improving their life-styles rather than jeopardizing their living conditions. If justice is really meted out to the people of Telengana, it would certainly be an ideal state with all areas of the region getting enough water for cultivation, more jobs and opportunities through the establishment of public-private partners, and utilization of natural resources as well. There would be less politics and mess, as it would be easy to govern people with the same mindset and attitudes towards life, rather than dealing with people who dig graves behind the backs. There will certainly be a day when the new state will be carved and the region developed like Haryana. It’s been 50 years, and it won’t be that long before the day comes.
The issue for a different state arises because the administration neglected the development in telengana areas which remain backward as compared to other side of Andhra.
All the politcial parties have cashed out the telengana issue for votes but the core issue is of development. Still i am not sure that even if Telengana is carved out from Andhra this issues will be addressed by the government. Jharkhand displays a perfect example. The real solution certainly doesn’t lies in separation but the solution lies in effective administration. This problem is self created by the ap govt. Voices for a different state is due to their own deeds which they never redeemed.
you are right mr.Raghunath, many political parties have used the Telangana issue for their benefits. I have a big doubt, when these political leaders (really)did not want the state to be seperated, why did they tie up with the T.R.S party. They know very well that T.R.S is a regional party and it supports seperation of telangana from Andhrapradesh. If they really did not want the seperation they should’nt have tie up with that party. And even people from other than telangana have supported the seperation, and even elected the party which assured a seperate telangana. and todays leaders who are doing some protests also know the facts.People in telangana have believed the leaders and political parties who ever supported the telangana seperation, and now, all those leaders, have cheated those people. They are using telangana for their political and personal benifits.
The post made a good read. I would only add this. No doubt, Andhra Pradesh has seen Maoist movement on the wane. It was however, more owing to liquidation rather than any positive political practice. The Neo-Liberal policies of successive Governments leading to a semblance of development and feeling of well-being among the population rendered the extra-judicial killings more effective. Maoist elements were forced out of the underground and surfaced in multifarious social phenomena, most particularly, a separate Telangana state. That is why you find an otherwise separtist demand legitimatized and taking the form of a progressive mass movement with its own jargon, art forms and political expression. All this is to say, the Telangana phenomenon is very distinct from other movements for a separate state and needs to be studied deeply and researched, before making any generalizations.
Telengana has always been the trumph card for various political parties in dfifferent elections,its not just KCR who has benefited with this long time ongoing issue.This time we have a different picture all together its the common man (people in telengana) voice which is been echoed due to which people (or parties) which proclaimed to be pro telengana has came with there true colours because of the agitation.Needless to say politicians have become the most untrusted people who have been cause for many more uprisings like this….
One thing i don’t understand is how the center(in 1956) , ignored the recommendations made by the State Reorganization Commission of creating a separate state called Telengena.Telengena has been an issue that has been raised time and time again over the past 50 years and it is important to note that the congress has not been able to quell any pro telegena movements in the past or in the present.Personally i do support the formation of a new state because:
a)After staying in Hyderabad for sometime, I have a better understanding of the issue and it seems to me that’s what people want.
b)Smaller states are easier to govern(BJP viewpoint)
But its been well articulated in the above article on how Andhra Pradesh, by being one unified state,has managed to keep ahead of many other states and has dealt with the naxal problem effectively.What the Congress is doing is pretty obvious, they are trying to placate TRS as well as satisfy pro andhra lobbyists. Anyone who has read Aditya Swarup’s article on “Telangana formation; Is a resolution necessary?” will know what i’m hinting at.
We don’t really know the basis on which the Centre has arrived at such a decision which has full potential to turn into a divisive one. One can only hope that they had the foresight to consider the plausible problems, a crucial one, reflected in the above post. The Centre’s got proposals or rather pressure for nine other States and it remains to be seen just how they would handle each one in light of the well thought out Constitutional mandate and practical difficulties as mentioned in the post. I guess it all boiled down to one man’s fast and his quest for (non) survival. As somebody said, “In India, we don’t let people die easily.”